Many of the tragedies mentioned about spring from what I see as a naïve faith in the power of the modern sexual revolution. Women today are technically free to do all sorts of things that were forbidden to their grandmothers, which is all well and good. But in practice, rape and the notion of sexual conquest persist for the same reason that warfare persists: because the human animal– especially the male animal– craves drama as much as food, shelter and clothing. Conquering an unwilling sex partner is about as much drama as a man can find without shooting a gun– and, of course, guns haven’t disappeared either.

Earth to liberated women: When you display legs, thighs or cleavage, some liberated men will see it as a sign that you feel good about yourself and your sexuality. But most men will see it as a sign that you want to get laid.

Actually, “conquering an unwilling sex partner” isn’t drama, it’s rape. It’s about as dramatic as me bashing someone over the head with a lead pipe. One of the examples this troglodyte gives as displaying skin is a picture of Lara Logan at an awards ceremony wearing a gown that had a plunging neckline! And bare shoulders! Because I’m sure that’s exactly what she was wearing at Tahrir Square when she was assaulted.

This brings me to another ridiculous thing–the NYC police officer who stopped a woman cyclist who was wearing a mini-skirt. No, really:

Rijcken was in town for the New Amsterdam Bike Show on April 30. After she had dismounted on Broadway in SoHo, an NYPD officer stopped, berated, and threatened to ticket Rijcken for wearing a skirt while cycling, which, it must be noted, is entirely legal and common. Rijcken says the officer told her that her skirt was dangerous because she would distract drivers and potentially cause them to crash.

“I was standing there next to my bike, looking at my map, and then this police guy stops and starts telling me about my skirt,” reported Rijcken. “At first I thought he was making a joke or maybe even a compliment, but then I found out he was serious because he got really mad.”

The officer got out of his car and threatened to ticket her, said Rijcken, even though, it bears repeating, there is no law against biking in a skirt. The justification for a potential ticket was the danger her exposed skin posed to everyone on the street. “That was the bottom line, that I was very dangerous,” said Rijcken. “I think every woman, even when walking in a skirt, would be dangerous then.”

Obviously, nowhere near as awful as rape, but Rijcken was shaken enough to return to her hotel room and change. This is utterly ridiculous, especially in a city with the Naked Cowboy.

And if you’ve ever written a post decrying rape (how is that controversial, by the way?), the apologists always come crawling out of the woodwork: she drank too much, or she wore too little.

Here’s what I don’t get about all of these bozos. They apparently want to live in a world where women can’t tie a few on (sluts!), can’t flirt (sluts!), and can’t reveal a little skin (sluts!).

Why would you want that? What a hideous, miserable existence.

For men.

Rape apologists are so stupid, they don’t even realize how much they’re making themselves miserable. Just how insecure do you have to be to drag everyone down to feel self-righteous? You instead should be pissed off at the fucked-up men among us who make female sexuality dangerous, instead of a normal and safe part of life.

Comments

Rape apologists don’t critique women because they want women to stop dressing a certain way. They critique women because then their own lecherous thoughts are justified, and because they don’t understand the boundary between the merely lecherous and the predatory… or because they are predators.
I’m afraid the real message here is “don’t trust Dan Rottenberg”

“Earth to liberated women: When you display legs, thighs or cleavage, some liberated men will see it as a sign that you feel good about yourself and your sexuality. But most men will see it as a sign that you want to get laid.”

If someone says; “most people steal from their employers” I’d be disinclined to hire them. On a similar theme if a man says that most men are potential rapists, that man is not a good relationship candidate.

Even assuming she did want to get laid, one might assume “by a person of her choosing” and not by some random aggressor. WTF is wrong with this idiot?

I think people who say things similar to the rank misogyny you’re quoting up there should be jailed or at least fined.

Because obviously they can barely control themselves from possibly raping another person on the street.

Instead of making women wear burqas, maybe we should pluck out the eyes of men and women who spout misogyny and the eyes of rapists. If the things they see make them lose control of their behavior, perhaps they don’t deserve vision.

(Yes, I am being facetious and purposely over-the-top-sounding about these suggested punishments, but the former is the blog post and NYC bullshit turned on its head and the latter is Saudi Arabia’s crap turned on its head.)

I wouldn’t be the first to propose that in addition to incarceration and rehabilitation the standard penalty for rape should be loss of one testicle. Second offense is loss of the second. A third takes the penis. Consider the last point a removal of a weapon.

This works on bulls. Removal of the testicles has a calming effect that makes the animal less competitive, less violent, and less interested in sex. It also prevents male pattern baldness.

Firstly, whether a woman wants or doesn’t want sex is irrelevant. You can want something to drink but not want just any drink offered. “Hey, listen, you said you were thirsty, here is my pee, time to drink up, bucko.”

The idea that a woman wanting sex in a general sense, means she’s available for sex to anyone is just so galling I don’t think I can even…yup, I can’t even.

Further, the idea that a base impulse is sanctioned as morally acceptable is also ridiculous. We teach children at a very young age that just because that want to grab a handful of that birthday cake doesn’t mean they are free to just do so. We are all compelled to do things that are selfish and even illegal, but no one runs around all indignant that the laws don’t let them just go in and grab that super sized TV their neighbor has. Sexual assaults seem to be the only crime that people feel should be overturned for the logic a 2 year old would employ.

There is a story running in the Guardian UK about men being raped in the Congo” The Rape of men”–it appears Mike the mad ass raper and his fauxminist cohorts ( troop) got heir wish!
–22% of male survivors report being raped –for YEARS in captivity, as opposed to 30% of women. And those are the men who surviced, and weren’t summarily executed because men like Mad Mike and the bonobo boner boys slather over ass rape.

It is more common than you think, but the problem is, while guys like Mike were busy hiding their porn stash from the ever prying eyes of mommy dearest, some of us didn’t have it so “easy” like Mike, or the boy in the video.

And Mike, I am pissed off because female pandering ass slatherers like you make life hard for men at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Iraq, and any prison USA with your careless, class based, and cowardly dismissals of rape.
But it pays yourbills, right, to notspeak up against international human rights violations against men, as long as you get a peek at a mutilated FGM victim witha smile on her face.

Ten thousand uranium babies for one photo op.

You pop a boner at the idea that your women friends Rebbeca, et al might have to *yikes* deal with a guy in an elevator, meanwhile, say nothing about the Abu Ghraib rapist Grainer getting out of Leavenworth.

It’s a unique form of cowardice that you possess–a jaded bully pulpit.

Or is it just a comfort thing with you people? You are comfortable knowing that when men get raped it’s ‘their fault and their ass, not yours’ while slopping down beers with some pseudo feminist in loose hanging paisley, and secretly think to yourself ” gee whizz, I’m one of the good guys!” Your so easy; progressivism come to fruition.

Wow, I will wait for Mike to speak for himself, instead of hiding behind a minionette like you.

If you wish to engage me in regards to the rape of men, or how rhetoric like the above post by Mike which posits that only women are discriminated against in matters of dress, and showing skin( not an interior monologue by any stretch), fine, but let’s not do it from the typical sciblog platform of misandrists like you labeling anti-rape activists like me as “massagerists” or something.

Men are being raped daily in American prisons, the Congo, etc., because of the demands, and violence against men by internationalist capitalists (many of whom are women) is a huge issue.

Meanwhile, back at sciblogs, all we can do is talk about the poor, little red riding skirt, ass backwards to traffic, and white women on elevators. Once in a great while ( like every other 1500 comments) someone brings up the rape of blackwomen, or the rape of non-white women.

BTW, did you ever answer my question to you over at ERV? If not, then let’s not talk.

Translating through your baseless, and aggressive attack, Wow, I bet you are a middle class white woman–or you should be, you speak for her so eloquently. And why aren’t you responding over at Abbies ERV blog, where I asked you several questions about your stupid assertions upholding the rape of young boys over there??

You’re a coward–like I said. A bonobo, resting on this blogs metaphorical male shoulders–don’t you have some little kids from your troop to GG rub with?

and re: “Now I’m sure Mike is powerful, but I don’t know that he’s actually in charge in the Congo or USA prisons. Neither, as far as I’m aware are any democrat representatives.”

Other then John Edwards, you mean?

That isn’t the point, Dorothy–the way to Oz is paved with scarecrows, and that’s just another one of them.

But since you brought it up, here’s some straw to burn: one of your democratic golden boys was invested in prisons–and he’s just one of your chosen sons. Note that he didn’t fall from grace because he was invested in prisons, he fell because he *gasp* had sex!: http://www.democrats.com/node/13643

And notice that when the topic is rape, and boys being raped like the video above, or 22% of a nations rape survivors are men, you little sniping man haters pop out from everywhere to try to silence the idea that men get raped? I mean, where did you come from on this thread?

How exactly is talking about rape somehow a diversion from talking about rape? You incomprehensibly, intentionally stupid, bone pated, privileged yak.

What a chimp. Are you afraid to lose your ‘po’ white wimins gets da raped’ funding or something if we talk about all forms of rape? After all there are SOOOOO many of you on the po’ white women project, and so little pork to go around–not that any of you reflect that….

And again, my post is to Mike, not you, unless you are his personal designated mikeophant, or minnionette.

I would swap ten million of you for seven or eight women from the Congo who deserve the chance to talk about the things on their minds, rather than morning after pap-dribble out of poor little self pitying white female/ white female panderers all the time. I mean, don’t you have a Klan meeting to go to or something?

And believe me, if what is happening in the Congo happens here, I ain’t on YOUR team.

In response to Art: It has been proven more often than not that men who rape women are not necessarily doing it for sexual gratification, and cutting off those parts will not stop those men from raping. They will use a broomstick if they have nothing else. It is all about conquest and domination.

Wow: Twat? Cool–now I can go fuck myself–maybe even dialectically rape myself– or at least get lots of attention about my “huge openings in large structures that transport people up and down” anxiety.

Hey, wait: I have a far more evil idea: since I am a twat, I will get knocked up by some clown,or genetically select for a girl– and then raise that kid to manipulate, lie about, or hate your boy, based on gender alone.

They will believe my daughter when she claims your son raped her in an elevator–I will teach her the quantum mechanics of “lying” and “exagerating” the truth for her advantage.

I win.Oh–me and my twat win.

But here is the full context of the quote you mined up there:
@22 [off-stage: click…BANG!]

Wow: so you are what, lending your kyriarchal permission to me to use the word?

No thanks there are plenty more words out there that do a better job like “scandal orchestration” or “manipulative, and disengenuous,” or “whiner” or even privileged white female, which includes all of the above–and you.

And I do not rest my laurels at the feet of privileged female permission to do anything–that has proven dire consequences to the poor in the under-developed world.

Them kyriarchs are so hungry all the time…But thanks for your matronly….er….matriarchal,um….kyriarchal POV.